Ah, shoot, you're right; sorry about the mis-info. But at least Ctrl-W doesn't require me to move my hands off of the neutral position on the keyboard...;)
In Win2K (or any Windows), just hit Ctrl-W to close the annoying pop-ups. I've found that I have to be so quick on the Ctrl-W trigger lately that my fingers pretty much just hover over those keys while I'm browsing.
by all accounts Mozart was like this - essentially a gibbering fool in life
If you think this, you are a gibbering fool, and you know nothing about the life of Mozart. There are lots of myths about Mozart; the "idiot savant" myth is merely one of many. Lord knows how they get started; certainly the movie "Amadeus" itself was responsible for fanning the flames of many of the extant myths.
Get your hands on some letters that Mozart wrote. Find a good, well-researched biography; there are lots out there. Most myths are spread by people who don't bother to read accurate histories. You'll see clearly that he certainly was no gibbering fool.
Belloc
Re:Big boost for space tech if it is on course...
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 1
Actually, they were using the experimental new metric time calculations, and they didn't get quite right. Turns out the thing will be here next week.
This will work with a Mac, but is not an Apple product. Just to be clear.
I'm not sure the lead could have been any more clear on this point. It says right there that the product is "Made by El Gato Software" with a direct link to their homepage, on which the featured product is EyeTV. How exactly is that deceptive at all?
I've read Men in Black II marks the first appearance of Apple's Mac OS X in a big movie.
Actually, there's a TiBook on Meg Ryan's boss' desk in Kate & Leopold, if I remember correctly. Did the TiBook ever run OS9 (only)? If not, we can make a pretty good argument that OSX was in that flick.
That's a very intriguing thing to say. Do you think that mathematics is beautiful (I do.)? But lots of people would balk at such a notion. By what principle can you predicate beauty of mathematics? The medievals had a saying: Beauty is that which, upon being seen, pleases. [Pulchra enim dicuntur quae visa placent.] How, then, would mathematics be beautiful? (I'm not talking about the visible beauty of parabolae here, obviously. I'm talking about beauty in proofs and truths and such).
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter, as a Johnnie. I may not be one, but I know what one is.;)
It's been something that I've thought about for quite some time now, and it would be nice to have some feedback from someone with your background.
You can write to this address if you want (make logical adjustments to it): chesterbelloc@@@hotmail...com
I do think that eventually one needs to have at least a general understanding of what has happened in 20th century mathematics.
Yeah, I do too, and that's why I said "at least not at first". Most people begin their education at the end instead of at the beginning, and I was just warning against that.
But besides that, I think that for the non-mathematician, the 20th century stuff is VERY difficult to understand. It tends to be rather abstract, primarily because it often begins with principles that do not arise from common sense, it uses current and past terminology equivocally, and tends to be so specialized that in some cases there are only a handful of people in the whole world that understand a given field.
But I suppose the inherent difficulties found in most 20th C. maths would make it harder for the layman/amateur to find his way in, regardless. In mathematics, unlike many other sciences, we have such wonderful, clear, and true examples of the science laid out for us so perfectly by such as Euclid and Apollonius, that it would be a shame for one who wants to love maths not to begin with them!
Apropos of this thread, read my post below (#3810243). I made the mistake of posting it in direct response to the original story, and I'm afraid it has gotten rather buried.
If you want to learn mathematics, the worst place to start is with a high school or college textbook. The second worst place to start is with a high school or college class, if only because they tend to rely on the textbooks.
Rather, you should begin your study of mathematics by reading the Ancient mathematicians. Begin with Euclid. In reading the Elements, you'll quickly discover that Euclid has presented a complete science (from self-evident first principles to logical conclusions) that includes truths about geometry (continuous quantity), number (discrete quantity), even the foundations of algebra (Elements, Book II). The Elements culminates with the constrution of the Five Perfect (or Platonic) Solids, the proofs of which are marvelous to behold.
In reading Euclid you'll not only create a rock-solid mathematical foundation for yourself, but you'll also:
Gain insight into the minds of the ancients (Plato would not let anyone into his school who hadn't mastered the geometry of the Elements),
Improve your reasoning skills (Abraham Lincoln read Euclid when he decided to supplement his education later in life), and
Be exposed to some of the most beautiful things that mathematics - or any academic pursuit - has to offer ("Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare." --Edna St. Vincent Millay)
After you've finished with Euclid, move on to Apollonius' Conics, a beautiful work, a thousand times more complete and wonderful in its treatment of conic sections than you'll find in any modern analytic geometry textbook. You may also want to look at works by guys like Archimedes, whose early work on the infinite inspired the Classical develompent of the Calculus.
With this firm foundation, you'll be able to read and understand the mathematics of Descartes, whose treatment of geometry (notably the solution of the four-line locus) was key in the development of algebraic notation. And if you stick with it, you can probably read Newton's Principia, Leibniz, and other later Classical mathematicians. I'd stay away from 20th century mathematics, at least at first. There's lots more joy for the amateur mathematician in reading and understanding these Ancient and Classical works than there is in trying to decipher some of the work that has been done recently (within the past 100 years).
Whatever you do, read original works. They are infinitely more understandable than textbooks and other secondary sources. Find someone or a small group of people to discuss them with. Ask each other what each author is doing, what assumptions he has made, what he thinks he has proven (if anything). Memorize proofs, especially with Euclid.
There is lots more that you can do, just with the authors I've named here, but at the very least, even if you ultimately decide to take a college course or something, get yourself a copy of Euclid's Elements. It's a singularly wonderful work, and you'll be very glad you did.
Catholics are starkly different from true Christians; for example, in the Bible it states "Call no man Father". The Pope is supposed to be called "Holy Father".
Please don't be stupid. Use common sense. If you truly believe this, what do you call your dad? Homer?
What Jesus meant by this was that any human fatherhood is mere participation in God's fatherhood. God is our true father. Men are only fathers inasmuch as they are like God as father.
Common sense is necessary in religion, otherwise you become an easy target.
I wrote a paper last year entitled "On Mathematical Beauty", which was mostly a philosophical work on whether it was proper to mathematics to be called beautiful, and if so, what one might mean by calling a particular bit of mathematics "beautiful".
So in light of that, I'm interested in seeing what people mean when they say that a physics experiment is "beautiful". If we can figure out what we mean by that (i.e., whether we mean "beautiful" in the same way as when we call a car or woman or building "beautiful"), then maybe that will help us decide which is the *most* beautiful.
Actually, according to the bible, the value of pi is 3 exactly. Check out 1 Kings 7:23...
What 1 Kings 7:23 says:
"Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference."
What it doesn't say:
"...a mathematical circle whose diameter is ten point zero zero cubits will have a circumference of thirty point zero zero cubits, thus saith the LORD, and those who tried to think otherwise were smited down by the tyrannical God of the Old Testament...."
1. The passage is describing the construction of a molten freaking sea, it's not a mathematical treatise on the nature of the circle.
2. Not only is this not a mathematical treatise, it's not even an engineering plan or construction document. It's just a loose description. "Thirty cubits" isn't a bad ballpark estimation of 31.4159... cubits when you're just describing the thing in layman's terms, especially when you don't know whether the "ten cubits from brim to brim" is an inside diameter, outside diameter, or center-wall to center-wall diameter.
3. Even if this passage were an engineering plan, no constructed, material "circle" is ever going to have a circumference of exactly pi times its diameter. There will always be a discrepancy by which it will be off, plus or minus, depending on the matter and its application, and the technological ability to fabricate it. The dimensions of a molten sea, for example, can be expected be off by more than, say, dimensinons of optical mirror components.
Fine. Give everyone who wants one a personal domain. Give them two. Whatever. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about people who register one domain for each one of their 67 cats, because each of their cats is so special that "thecatlady.com/fluffy" and "thecatlady.com/sparkles" isn't giving Fluffy and Sparkles the justice they deserve.
I'm talking about people that register "slaHSdot.org" in hopes of catching bad typists.
I'm talking about people who have to register "bestial-love-fest-xxx-xxx-xxx.com" because "besial-love-fest-xxx-xxx.com" was already taken.
I'm talking about every damn member of n*sync having a website for each of his damn tatoos.
I'm talking about dns database bloat.
I'm NOT talking about abandoning legitimate "joebloggs.me.uk" or even "joeblow.com" domains. I'm NOT talking about that.
I want to give an email addresss out to someone and not get an email 6 months later saying "Hey, do you want that job we talked about?"
First, I'm not talking about email addresses. At the very least, get a hotmail address. Get a yahoo address. Both of those free email providers (and hundreds of others) have been around for (effectively) the life of the commercial internet, and will be around for the forseeable future, so you're not going to have problems in 6 months. Nobody that needs email for serious business/career correspondence uses their local "on the verge of bankrupcy" ISP as their primary email domain, anyway. If you're a freelancer, and you need email for serious correspondence, get your own domain. If you work for a company/university/government, use their email. If you work for an unstable company, you're effectively freelancing, so get your own domain.
But I'm talking primarily about web presence/content here. So if you need a fixed website, and your career depends on it, I'd think that qualifies as a "legitimate business interest." My main concern here is the dns bloat and general web confusion that is caused by "domainizing" addresses that don't need individual entries in the dns databases, and should instead be served as subdirectories under primary domains.
Well, yes, for legitimate business and other interests. But what about useless or misleading domain names?
Examples of the useless:
mycatfluffy.com
thedorkfamilyvacation.com
any of the nearly infinite variations on "pr0n" words: xxx, lesbian, suck, etc.
Examples of the misleading:
notmilk.com
notharvard.com (since litigated out of existence)
britneysucks.com
slahsdot.org (and all of the "mis-type" sites)
My point is this: domain name registration should long ago have been subjected to some sort of test for legitimacy, something like the.EDU registration now, but with perhaps looser guidelines. To get an.EDU, you must be a "regionally-accredited, degree-granting institutions of higher education," among other things.
But to get a.COM or whatever, you only have to be able to type (and not even that). I might be wrong, but that seems to contribute to confuson on the web, and massive bloat in the dns databases. Why couldn't there have been at least some minimal requirement for getting a domain? Maybe you should have to be an actual licensed business or registered non-profit or something.
I'm not trying to make the web corporate here, or keep individual voices off, but couldn't the Dork Family put their loser pictures up at "earthlink.net/thedorkfamily/vacation" or whatever? Why do they need a domain for that?
While I'm on it, here's a similar issue: why does every movie that comes out need it's own domain name? Is a movie really a "domain", the way domains were intended? As a business interest, for advertising, the film needs web exposure for maybe six months. But listen, The Siege wasn't even an average movie way back in 1998. Why does it still need to have a web presence with a stupid flash intro screen? Even if it needed a web presence at all, which it doesn't, couldn't it be done as "universal.com/thesiege" or something, the way Sony does it with all their movies from the get-go?
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I'd be thrilled if someone could explain to me why I'm wrong about these issues. It's been bugging me since about 1997.
Very true, as the man once said: "Golf, the perfect way to spoil a decent walk".
Actually, it's this: "Golf is a good walk spoiled," which is much more succinct, and captures Twain's whimsy a bit better. Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit."
If you're going to quote Twain, it's worth getting it right. Twain also said, "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
Slashdot Mirror
Alt+F4 just closes the foremost window ...
;)
Ah, shoot, you're right; sorry about the mis-info. But at least Ctrl-W doesn't require me to move my hands off of the neutral position on the keyboard...
Alt-F4 is fine if you want to close the whole app and all its windows. Ctrl-W closes just the offending window.
In Win2K (or any Windows), just hit Ctrl-W to close the annoying pop-ups. I've found that I have to be so quick on the Ctrl-W trigger lately that my fingers pretty much just hover over those keys while I'm browsing.
And for Mac users, it's just Command-W.
by all accounts Mozart was like this - essentially a gibbering fool in life
If you think this, you are a gibbering fool, and you know nothing about the life of Mozart. There are lots of myths about Mozart; the "idiot savant" myth is merely one of many. Lord knows how they get started; certainly the movie "Amadeus" itself was responsible for fanning the flames of many of the extant myths.
Get your hands on some letters that Mozart wrote. Find a good, well-researched biography; there are lots out there. Most myths are spread by people who don't bother to read accurate histories. You'll see clearly that he certainly was no gibbering fool.
Belloc
Actually, they were using the experimental new metric time calculations, and they didn't get quite right. Turns out the thing will be here next week.
Belloc
I believe my favorite line would have to be:
PC Load Letter! What the fuck does that mean!!
Sorry. The best line by far is the reference to Michael Bolton as a "no-talent ass-clown". Wow.
This will work with a Mac, but is not an Apple product. Just to be clear.
I'm not sure the lead could have been any more clear on this point. It says right there that the product is "Made by El Gato Software" with a direct link to their homepage, on which the featured product is EyeTV. How exactly is that deceptive at all?
I've read Men in Black II marks the first appearance of Apple's Mac OS X in a big movie.
Actually, there's a TiBook on Meg Ryan's boss' desk in Kate & Leopold, if I remember correctly. Did the TiBook ever run OS9 (only)? If not, we can make a pretty good argument that OSX was in that flick.
Belloc
All the beauty is being leeched out of it.
;)
That's a very intriguing thing to say. Do you think that mathematics is beautiful (I do.)? But lots of people would balk at such a notion. By what principle can you predicate beauty of mathematics? The medievals had a saying: Beauty is that which, upon being seen, pleases. [Pulchra enim dicuntur quae visa placent.] How, then, would mathematics be beautiful? (I'm not talking about the visible beauty of parabolae here, obviously. I'm talking about beauty in proofs and truths and such).
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter, as a Johnnie. I may not be one, but I know what one is.
It's been something that I've thought about for quite some time now, and it would be nice to have some feedback from someone with your background.
You can write to this address if you want (make logical adjustments to it): chesterbelloc@@@hotmail...com
Belloc
I wonder if you're a johnnie like me.
;)
No, I'm not, sorry.
I do think that eventually one needs to have at least a general understanding of what has happened in 20th century mathematics.
Yeah, I do too, and that's why I said "at least not at first". Most people begin their education at the end instead of at the beginning, and I was just warning against that.
But besides that, I think that for the non-mathematician, the 20th century stuff is VERY difficult to understand. It tends to be rather abstract, primarily because it often begins with principles that do not arise from common sense, it uses current and past terminology equivocally, and tends to be so specialized that in some cases there are only a handful of people in the whole world that understand a given field.
But I suppose the inherent difficulties found in most 20th C. maths would make it harder for the layman/amateur to find his way in, regardless. In mathematics, unlike many other sciences, we have such wonderful, clear, and true examples of the science laid out for us so perfectly by such as Euclid and Apollonius, that it would be a shame for one who wants to love maths not to begin with them!
Belloc
Obviously, since I went to an extreme liberal arts school...
So, where did you go to school?
Belloc
Apropos of this thread, read my post below (#3810243). I made the mistake of posting it in direct response to the original story, and I'm afraid it has gotten rather buried.
Belloc
Rather, you should begin your study of mathematics by reading the Ancient mathematicians. Begin with Euclid. In reading the Elements, you'll quickly discover that Euclid has presented a complete science (from self-evident first principles to logical conclusions) that includes truths about geometry (continuous quantity), number (discrete quantity), even the foundations of algebra (Elements, Book II). The Elements culminates with the constrution of the Five Perfect (or Platonic) Solids, the proofs of which are marvelous to behold.
In reading Euclid you'll not only create a rock-solid mathematical foundation for yourself, but you'll also:
After you've finished with Euclid, move on to Apollonius' Conics, a beautiful work, a thousand times more complete and wonderful in its treatment of conic sections than you'll find in any modern analytic geometry textbook. You may also want to look at works by guys like Archimedes, whose early work on the infinite inspired the Classical develompent of the Calculus.
With this firm foundation, you'll be able to read and understand the mathematics of Descartes, whose treatment of geometry (notably the solution of the four-line locus) was key in the development of algebraic notation. And if you stick with it, you can probably read Newton's Principia, Leibniz, and other later Classical mathematicians. I'd stay away from 20th century mathematics, at least at first. There's lots more joy for the amateur mathematician in reading and understanding these Ancient and Classical works than there is in trying to decipher some of the work that has been done recently (within the past 100 years).
Whatever you do, read original works. They are infinitely more understandable than textbooks and other secondary sources. Find someone or a small group of people to discuss them with. Ask each other what each author is doing, what assumptions he has made, what he thinks he has proven (if anything). Memorize proofs, especially with Euclid.
There is lots more that you can do, just with the authors I've named here, but at the very least, even if you ultimately decide to take a college course or something, get yourself a copy of Euclid's Elements. It's a singularly wonderful work, and you'll be very glad you did.
Belloc
Catholics are starkly different from true Christians; for example, in the Bible it states "Call no man Father". The Pope is supposed to be called "Holy Father".
Please don't be stupid. Use common sense. If you truly believe this, what do you call your dad? Homer?
What Jesus meant by this was that any human fatherhood is mere participation in God's fatherhood. God is our true father. Men are only fathers inasmuch as they are like God as father.
Common sense is necessary in religion, otherwise you become an easy target.
Belloc
I wrote a paper last year entitled "On Mathematical Beauty", which was mostly a philosophical work on whether it was proper to mathematics to be called beautiful, and if so, what one might mean by calling a particular bit of mathematics "beautiful".
So in light of that, I'm interested in seeing what people mean when they say that a physics experiment is "beautiful". If we can figure out what we mean by that (i.e., whether we mean "beautiful" in the same way as when we call a car or woman or building "beautiful"), then maybe that will help us decide which is the *most* beautiful.
Belloc
This article reports that Sun is meeting with a group of Solaris x86 users called the 'Secret Six'.
It's not too damn secret now, is it?
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.
The gist: When you fight a monster, you'd better be careful that you don't become a monster in doing so.
That's a very appropriate sig for an article on Microsoft.
Belloc
Actually, according to the bible, the value of pi is 3 exactly. Check out 1 Kings 7:23...
What 1 Kings 7:23 says:
"Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference."
What it doesn't say:
"...a mathematical circle whose diameter is ten point zero zero cubits will have a circumference of thirty point zero zero cubits, thus saith the LORD, and those who tried to think otherwise were smited down by the tyrannical God of the Old Testament...."
1. The passage is describing the construction of a molten freaking sea, it's not a mathematical treatise on the nature of the circle.
2. Not only is this not a mathematical treatise, it's not even an engineering plan or construction document. It's just a loose description. "Thirty cubits" isn't a bad ballpark estimation of 31.4159... cubits when you're just describing the thing in layman's terms, especially when you don't know whether the "ten cubits from brim to brim" is an inside diameter, outside diameter, or center-wall to center-wall diameter.
3. Even if this passage were an engineering plan, no constructed, material "circle" is ever going to have a circumference of exactly pi times its diameter. There will always be a discrepancy by which it will be off, plus or minus, depending on the matter and its application, and the technological ability to fabricate it. The dimensions of a molten sea, for example, can be expected be off by more than, say, dimensinons of optical mirror components.
4. Sheesh. People will say anything.
Belloc
*double-sigh*
Fine. Give everyone who wants one a personal domain. Give them two. Whatever. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about people who register one domain for each one of their 67 cats, because each of their cats is so special that "thecatlady.com/fluffy" and "thecatlady.com/sparkles" isn't giving Fluffy and Sparkles the justice they deserve.
I'm talking about people that register "slaHSdot.org" in hopes of catching bad typists.
I'm talking about people who have to register "bestial-love-fest-xxx-xxx-xxx.com" because "besial-love-fest-xxx-xxx.com" was already taken.
I'm talking about every damn member of n*sync having a website for each of his damn tatoos.
I'm talking about dns database bloat.
I'm NOT talking about abandoning legitimate "joebloggs.me.uk" or even "joeblow.com" domains. I'm NOT talking about that.
*sigh*
I want to give an email addresss out to someone and not get an email 6 months later saying "Hey, do you want that job we talked about?"
First, I'm not talking about email addresses. At the very least, get a hotmail address. Get a yahoo address. Both of those free email providers (and hundreds of others) have been around for (effectively) the life of the commercial internet, and will be around for the forseeable future, so you're not going to have problems in 6 months. Nobody that needs email for serious business/career correspondence uses their local "on the verge of bankrupcy" ISP as their primary email domain, anyway. If you're a freelancer, and you need email for serious correspondence, get your own domain. If you work for a company/university/government, use their email. If you work for an unstable company, you're effectively freelancing, so get your own domain.
But I'm talking primarily about web presence/content here. So if you need a fixed website, and your career depends on it, I'd think that qualifies as a "legitimate business interest." My main concern here is the dns bloat and general web confusion that is caused by "domainizing" addresses that don't need individual entries in the dns databases, and should instead be served as subdirectories under primary domains.
Belloc
Domain names are critical for so many reasons...
.EDU registration now, but with perhaps looser guidelines. To get an .EDU, you must be a "regionally-accredited, degree-granting institutions of higher education," among other things.
.COM or whatever, you only have to be able to type (and not even that). I might be wrong, but that seems to contribute to confuson on the web, and massive bloat in the dns databases. Why couldn't there have been at least some minimal requirement for getting a domain? Maybe you should have to be an actual licensed business or registered non-profit or something.
Well, yes, for legitimate business and other interests. But what about useless or misleading domain names?
Examples of the useless:
mycatfluffy.com
thedorkfamilyvacation.com
any of the nearly infinite variations on "pr0n" words: xxx, lesbian, suck, etc.
Examples of the misleading:
notmilk.com
notharvard.com (since litigated out of existence)
britneysucks.com
slahsdot.org (and all of the "mis-type" sites)
My point is this: domain name registration should long ago have been subjected to some sort of test for legitimacy, something like the
But to get a
I'm not trying to make the web corporate here, or keep individual voices off, but couldn't the Dork Family put their loser pictures up at "earthlink.net/thedorkfamily/vacation" or whatever? Why do they need a domain for that?
While I'm on it, here's a similar issue: why does every movie that comes out need it's own domain name? Is a movie really a "domain", the way domains were intended? As a business interest, for advertising, the film needs web exposure for maybe six months. But listen, The Siege wasn't even an average movie way back in 1998. Why does it still need to have a web presence with a stupid flash intro screen? Even if it needed a web presence at all, which it doesn't, couldn't it be done as "universal.com/thesiege" or something, the way Sony does it with all their movies from the get-go?
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I'd be thrilled if someone could explain to me why I'm wrong about these issues. It's been bugging me since about 1997.
Belloc
This just became my new example to use when explaining to people what a malapropism is.
My old example had always been this: if someone were to say "taken for granite..." when they meant "taken for granted", that would be a malapropism.
This one is much better.
Very true, as the man once said: "Golf, the perfect way to spoil a decent walk".
Actually, it's this: "Golf is a good walk spoiled," which is much more succinct, and captures Twain's whimsy a bit better. Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit."
If you're going to quote Twain, it's worth getting it right. Twain also said, "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
Belloc
Oh, that's the post #. Duh.
What's my userid? 277xxxx? Should be LT 40000. Why is everyone's UID 277xxxx?